The No.1 makes a great little paperweight! People's first reaction is interesting here in Japan.Originally Posted by David Weaver
Stan
Guest
The No.1 makes a great little paperweight! People's first reaction is interesting here in Japan.
Stan
Contributor
I do a bit of small scale work and some pattern-making in bass wood. The #3 is good for that. It does make an excellent block substitute as well. Otherwise I concur with the four-crowd.
Russ
Contributor
Have you thought about getting a good user Stanley No 4 on Ebay? I have found several excellent users (4, 5, 4-1/2, and 6) for very reasonable prices. The older ones that came with sweetheart blades sharpened and honed to cut nearly as nicely as my LN, LV, ploanes and Stanleys with Hock blades. You would have a solid performer that you could use with a little tuneup that would perform every bit as well as or better than the Wood River.
Note that you will also have to fettle the Wood River to get it to perform well.
Later on, you can upgrade the blade with a Hock, LV or LN blade and you will have an heirloom-worthy Amercan-made plane with much more history and character than the Wood River.
Or, this could also be something to thnk about for your next plane buy of a No. 3 . . . ! I love the Stanley No. 3 my father gave me - especially after adding a Hock blade.
Last edited by allen long; 02-02-2013 at 1:16 AM.
No, the sky is not falling - just chunks of it are.
Member
I see what you did there...
Not all chemicals are bad. Without hydrogen or oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.
Member
Like it or not this simply isn't true. Unless you consider honing the blade or putting a secondary bevel on the cap iron feddlling. I'm not going to go into the discussion of made where, or who copied who, or peoples personal feelings love or hate about these planes - everyone is entitled to their opinion in those regards and everyone has the choice to vote with there wallet on whether these planes live or die.
You're suggestions for alternatives are all excellent and I fully agree with them, but the fact of the matter is the WR don't require fettling. Like it or not, they simply don't.
I will add. I own a second generation WR 6. From a purely user perspective, it is an excellent tool. Definitely nicer to use than a vintage plane. That said, I probably wouldn't buy another one for a couple reasons.
1) Given the option (and that includes availability and also the options my wallet allows) I would much rather support LV or LN.
2) Vintage bench planes, especially smoothers are dirt cheap, and I now have the skill to get one working as well as a premium plane in very little time.
3) The WR's have gone up enough in price that I don't believe they are as good of a value as they once were. I got my 6 for like a $100 maybe a $110 when they were clearing out the second generation planes to make way for the V3s. A WR 4 is now $140, and LV No.4 is $200. If you are able to come up with the extra $60 you will not regret it. The LV and LNs are nicer tools. However, if you are not, know that in terms of what it does to the wood, the WR will perform as well as any other properly setup/sharpened bench plane, and enjoy your new tool. Actual performance has as much or more to do with the user than the tool anyway.
Last edited by Chris Griggs; 02-02-2013 at 9:36 AM.
Woodworking is terrific for keeping in shape, but it's also a deadly serious killing system...
Contributor
Another Vintage option, IF you can find one, is one of the Millers Falls premium type smoothers. an #8 or a #9, or even a #10? I have just re-furbbed a #8, and, VERY NICE! A thicker iron than the Stanley type 11, #4 I have. Once I got it fettled up, it was making see-through shaving in Oak.
I also have a couple planes by Union, "type 2" I think they are. The #3 has a very thick iron, and had a BIG bevel on it. Secondary bevel is about the same as most other iron's primary one. Might try the Union #5A as a smoother this weekend. Just a long #4-1/2? This one is afew inches longer than a #5, and a bit wider. Again, it also has a thick iron, just not as thick as the #3.
[OP]
Member
I went ahead and ordered the WoodRiver #4 last night. Since I've heard plenty of good things about them, I wanted to have one example in my arsenal. Someday I may take a crack at finding a vintage plane on ebay, but for now I'm not confident enough to know how to recognize a good deal. My other planes are Records and Stanleys that I bought new 15-20 years ago. I think I am covered for now in planes. Thanks again for all the recommendations.
Member
Congrats. I'm sure you'll be satisfied with it. Always fun to get a new tool!
Woodworking is terrific for keeping in shape, but it's also a deadly serious killing system...
Member
I was waiting to see anyone would catch my pun.
"I've cut the dang thing three times and it's STILL too darn short"
Name withheld to protect the guilty
Stew Hagerty
Contributor
I have a 2,3 and 4; I use the 4 the most.
Trevor Walsh
TWDesignShop
Member
Heh.
To contribute to the thread, I have and use a #4 the most. (My most used are a #62, #4, and low-angle block plane.) However, I recently purchased a Stanley #3 with the intention of putting it in my son's tool box. Having recently held it, though, I'm really going to want to try it out myself! Aside from the narrower sole, it just seems like it will be easier to maneuver on small stock. Playing with this one, I was able to get the chipbreaker a hair's breadth from the end of the blade, so I'm looking forward to trying it on some figured wood and seeing how I experience that particular topic for myself.
daniel
Not all chemicals are bad. Without hydrogen or oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.
Contributor
I stand corrected about the Wood River. Don't really have strong feelings against them. How are the blades? Not sure why I am asking because I already have more dang planes than I actually need - and a couple I still have to finish rehabbing, But, I am interested in getting the real skinny on the business end of the Wood River.
Kind Regards . . . .Allen
No, the sky is not falling - just chunks of it are.
Member
Hi Allen. Sorry if I jumped on you. I've just seen a lot of people who've never used the WRs deliberately and incorrectly tell others (typically newbies) that they are crap (in terms of use) because of their feeling about other aspects of the WRs production. Those feelings/opinions are of course valid, and like you I don't have super strong feelings either way about the WRs, but misinforming new woodworkers really ticks me off.
Anyway, I see that you were not doing that, so again, I apologize if I jumped on your post a bit. Anyway, I can only speak to the 2nd generation WRs, and supposedly the 3rds are better yet. The blade for mine was a little chippy when it was new, but pretty quickly became as good as any other good blade. I think I had to do a little work on the back, but not much. Everything on mine was flat and square, everything felt solid. I've been using it heavily for 3 years and its worked for me very well. I even dropped it toe first on concrete once and other than a couple of burrs to file off it was fine, and remained flat and square.
The WRs will give you everything you need and more in terms of having a solid tool that does what its supposed to do. What you get with the LNs and LVs (in addition to getting to support N. American workers and very very well run companies with great customer service) has a lot to do with comfort and ease of adjustment. The LVs and LNs have a nicer balance to them, the adjustments are smoother and more dialed in, and the fit and finish on the blades and such is higher (as in the backs are dead flat). Of course, you also get more options in terms of blade material, bed angles, and BU vs BD.
So there you have it. Despite being a huge LV fan boy I can't fault the WRs at all in terms of use and performance. They are well made high performing bailey stye planes, and the bailey design is and always has been brilliant. But all the said what you get if you can and do spend the extra on the LVs and LNs is totally worth it to me.
Woodworking is terrific for keeping in shape, but it's also a deadly serious killing system...
Contributor
Chris is absolutely on target. I have three WR V3 planes and other than honing the blade and putting a bevel on the cap iron none have required any "feddling". I also have an embarrassingly large number of LN and LV planes that I have to hide from SWMBO. Functionally, the biggest difference between my LN #4 and my WR #4 is the fact that the LN has noticeably less backlash than the WR and I can use the LN with a high angle frog (which I don't currently own). Both would take a nice shaving right out of the box (well, after you wiped all the oil off) and the honing only made them better.
I love my LN planes - they are a joy to look at and to use. I take comfort in the fact they are made in the USA and have a lifetime warranty. But the current WR planes are an excellent quality and value. My newest WR is a #6, which was on sale in December for $151.99 compared to the LN price of $375.
Since I already have every size bench plane save the #1, I was going to recommend the WR #4 as a good choice and excellent value. But, I see you already pulled the trigger on it.
- Mike
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Contributor
Careful, you may end up getting something else for your son.However, I recently purchased a Stanley #3 with the intention of putting it in my son's tool box. Having recently held it, though, I'm really going to want to try it out myself!
My #3 comes out often when just the slightest shaving needs to be taken. It is just a little lighter than the #4s for coaxing a small imperfection off of a surface.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote